The Hobbit at Feedbooks

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by ErwinOtten

There you go......I'm not naïve, someone just misinterpreted the copyright laws

*shocking* !!! and they're so limpid and straightforward, too.

Originally Posted by Donnageddon

* in my experience "white fluffy crap" (ie. snow) is called <expletive deleted> especially when it comes in seemingly unending amounts.

by the way, i think "expletive deleted" would make a good name for a band.

** I would like to say I am a better man for going without TV and the Internet for 10 days, but I can't. It just made me more a curmudgeon than HarryT***

i start to have symptoms of withdrawal when my internet connection is down for more than 10 minutes or so, so you have my sincerest sympathies. i'm glad you've re-established contact with the outside world again.

[HarryT]

Really, what is difficult to understand about "it's in copyright for 70 years after the author's death"? It ain't rocket science .

[zelda_pinwheel]

in copyright for 70 years after the author's death, unless we're talking about canada and some other countries where it's 50 years, except for things published before 1924 (or whatever it is) which are in the PD in the US but nowhere else regardless of the date of death of the author UNLESS their copyright was explicitly renewed, in which case they're *not* in the PD there either, and by the way in France don't forget to add + 6 years 152 days for the World War I, + 8 years and 120 days for the World War II, [+ 30 years if the author died on active service], and if we're talking about a translation then the date of death of the author is irrelevant because in fact the key date is the death of the translator, and the same holds true for a compilation of works in a specific order...


no, no, you're right, there's nothing at all confusing about that.

[lilac_jive]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

in copyright for 70 years after the author's death, unless we're talking about canada and some other countries where it's 50 years, except for things published before 1924 (or whatever it is) which are in the PD in the US but nowhere else regardless of the date of death of the author UNLESS their copyright was explicitly renewed, in which case they're *not* in the PD there either, and by the way in France don't forget to add + 6 years 152 days for the World War I, + 8 years and 120 days for the World War II, [+ 30 years if the author died on active service], and if we're talking about a translation then the date of death of the author is irrelevant because in fact the key date is the death of the translator, and the same holds true for a compilation of works in a specific order...


no, no, you're right, there's nothing at all confusing about that.

My head hurts now

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by lilac_jive

My head hurts now

my point exactly.

[Dedale]

whaooo... you really know this business zelda ^^'

[HarryT]

What do world wars have to do with copyright terms? You slightly lost me there. Could you elaborate?

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Dedale

whaooo... you really know this business zelda ^^'

no, i just know a tiny bit, enough to know that current copyright laws are bloated and abusive and ridiculously arcane and tortuous and need urgently to be revised. (oh, and that most of the problem is Disney's fault).

and i didn't even mention CC works, which can be in the PD even though their author is still alive !!

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What do world wars have to do with copyright terms? You slightly lost me there. Could you elaborate?

personally, i don't see that they should have anything to do with copyright terms, myself, and the entire business loses me.

wikipedia is your friend :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...pyright_length

(see the listing for France.)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

and i didn't even mention CC works, which can be in the PD even though their author is still alive !!

Creative Commons works most certainly are not in the public domain. The fact that something can be copied does not make it "public domain".

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Creative Commons works most certainly are not in the public domain.

i believe they can be released into the public domain specifically*. even if they're not in the PD, you usually have the explicit right to copy them, which is yet another statute to factor in.


*i could be wrong. copyright law is complicated and confusing, and i am not an expert by any means.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

i believe they can be released into the public domain specifically. even if they're not in the PD, you usually have the explicit right to copy them, which is yet another statute to factor in.

Any author can explicitly release a work to the public domain, but that's entirely different from a Creative Commons licence, which is a licence to copy a work within certainly very rigidly-defined terms.

You can do anything you want with a work in a public domain - modify it, create derivative works, sell it at a profit. All these acts are specifically prohibited for works released under a creative commons licence. A work released under a CC licence is fully protected by copyright laws, but the author has said "you can copy it under these specific circumstances", which are laid out in the licence terms.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Any author can explicitly release a work to the public domain, but that's entirely different from a Creative Commons licence, which is a licence to copy a work within certainly very rigidly-defined terms.

You can do anything you want with a work in a public domain - modify it, create derivative works, sell it at a profit. All these acts are specifically prohibited for works released under a creative commons licence.

sorry, i was confused.

[zelda_pinwheel]

actually the basic CC licence is not that rigid ; i think the most basic version requires only that the author of the work be credited (attribution). there are other components which can be specified depending on the creator's intentions. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativ...mmons_Licenses

there's also the copyleft movement which is another very interesting point of view, by the way :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

[HarryT]

The fundamental difference between a CC work and one that's in the PD is that a CC work is "owned" by its author, and fully protected by copyright law. Nobody owns a work that it's the PD, and anyone can do absolutely anything they wish with it. The original author has no more rights to it than anyone else does.